User talk:Raeky/Archives/2009/October

Bryozoan image

Raeky, what happened? The 14 Sept version shown of File:Bryozoa_Anatomy.svg was the type of thing I wanted, with the changes I noted in the bullet points. --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's too similar to the "copyrighted" version you linked, and I couldn't think of a good way remake it. This new version shows the anatomy in a different more compact way that should lend it's self to making an fairly nice Annotated Image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I already have an image that's within my limited capabilities but gives more detail than the one you produced, and and have used that for a generalised bryozoan. I also wanted one of an encrusting bryozoan as these are the dominant form and have some specific features - the body lies flat rather than upright, is enclosed in a mineralised "box", has an operculum ("lid"), the invert and lophophore bend upwards when extended, etc. Perhaps you could produce an image similar to the example I linked to, but in a simple profile view, i.e. the gut, invert and lophophore run from left to right rather than in the three-quarter view shown by the sample I linked. BTW I'm more interested in clarity rather than aesthetics - it's meant to be used as a diagram and I tend to favour a slightly cartoonish look with sharp outlines and strong contrasts (see for example File:Porifera cell types 01.png as used at Sponge - definitely not any kind of art, but the various components are easily identifiable). --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that i should stay on Wikipedia--Zink Dawg -- 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your contributions to articles is good, but you need to come clean about your images you uploaded that you continued to claim was your photographs when it was clear they was not. You can contribute photographs to articles, just search for appropriately licensed free ones and give proper credit, I've uploaded hundreds of freely licensed photographs to Commons for that purpose. You can't take someone else's photograph and claim it is yours though and if you continue to do that then you'll likely be banned. If you want help on finding appropriately licensed photographs and how to upload them then I'll be happy to help. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Anatomy photo workshop

Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at Talk:Human#Biology_section_image:_Anatomy.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Los Angeles, CA from the air.jpg

Take a look at the cool photo I just uploaded of Los Angeles, CA. Do you think that my photo can be a Featured picture.--Zink Dawg -- 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to fix your deletion tag on my photo.

Also, I was told by a administrator, That It was OK to upload images on here from flickr.--Zink Dawg -- 02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to commons: see here. It is preferred free images go on Commons and only "fair use" images uploaded to the respective project pages. Images on commons can be used across all the wikimedia projects. The deletion tag is a formality just indicating the location of the media has moved to Commons. Read the comments I put on your user page, you was in error uploading it here and how you uploaded it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed your deletion tag on my photo. Thank you for your help. I will set up a user name on Wikimedia Commons.--Zink Dawg -- 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to create an account just go to this page Special:MergeAccount and your login here will automatically be copied to the other projects and will magically work at Commons too. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done... See Special:MergeAccount--Zink Dawg -- 03:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is way better for uploding images. Its allot easier to understand. Thank you for your help.--Zink Dawg -- 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

See, File:Venice, California Beach.jpg. Did I do it right. Please tell me.--Zink Dawg -- 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks right, except always download the LARGEST (original) photo you can and upload, you seem to be uploading small versions. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Raeky. You have new messages at Makeemlighter's talk page.
Message added 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Makeemlighter (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How quickly can you re-nom an FP?

That VERTREP pic... I agree with you entirely that it shouldn't have been closed as not promoted... I've read through the rules very carefully and I found this section :

"How to comment If you approve of a picture, write Support followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. "

Nowhere in that section does it state that Neutral is a vote, and thus it cannot be considered... Votes are only Support and Oppose according to this, and that therefore made the consensus 6/3 as you originally pointed out on the editor's talk page...

I will keep an eye out and re-support when it is re-listed but I was wondering how quickly you are allowed to re-list it? Gazhiley (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday said he would nominate it again in a month, so I assume a month. Top of the FP page says 2/3rds is considered majority for FP's and 6/3 is 60% and 2/3 is 66%, so technically strictly by numbers it didn't get enough votes to counter the opposes. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on when i was in school i was taught that 6 from 9 is 0.666666666 which to me is 2/3rds... Definately not 60%... Even if you want to use fractions, you have 9 noms, 3 oppose, 6 supports... for every 2 supports, 1 oppose... so 2/3 of the noms were support... Gazhiley (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes yes, I made mistakes, then TECHNICALLY the votes just matched the 2/3rds requirements exactly, it SHOULD of been promoted then. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're wikicup flag.

Hi, Raeky. I noticed you chose the US flag for the 2010 WikiCup. However, someone already chose the current US flag, so I suggest choosing another flag or an older version of the US flag. Secret Saturdays (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know mine had to be different.. hmm. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Myth - The True Meaning

The following quote regarding the meaning of MYTH is from wikipedia:

"The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;"

This signifies that the idea of Creation is false without any true Biblical or Doctrinal understanding. There is as sufficient evidence for Creation as there is for Evolution. For example; I have studied Abiogenesis, Evolution including variation, divergence and natural selection. Also Biology including Micro Biology so I am able to point out more errors in such processes than I can find in Creation.

I am told when writing in an encyclopedia there should be no bias. Therefore the term 'Myth' if remaining a neutral online encyclopedia should not be used in this context.

Any questions feel free to ask

hewhocauses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hewhocauses (talk • contribs) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First, your wrong, there is no evidence of "creationism." Creation science is pseudoscience. As for the academic use of Myth see the MANY talk page topics on this on Creation myths, for example this one. As for Evolution see Creation–evolution_controversy, Objections to evolution, Level of support for evolution, and many others. Second be sure to use ~~~~ to sign your posts in the future. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Image use policy clarification

If you have the time I'd like your input on my proposed clarification of WP:Image use policy concerning fair-use/copyright versus public-domain/trademark image use. The proposal is contained here. Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

La Salle rape scandal

I wrote this original article when it was in this form: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2004_La_Salle_University_men%27s_basketball_scandal&oldid=282596829 . It was a lot of work, and as you can see, I listed more than 30 newspaper citations. However, those articles arn't available on-line (not without a paid subscription at least). How can I restore this article to it's previous, specific state without it being deleted? 24.214.53.191 (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It would need to strictly follow the biographies of living persons policies with solid third party reliable sources for anything that could be libel. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So I could still use newspaper sources, even if they weren't on-line? 24.214.53.191 (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You would have to clearly cite them, follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:CITE#HOW. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that much of the objection of the version you linked too wasn't that you didn't have sources, that these sources wasn't inline. You need to use inline citations, and wikipedia doesn't need a blow-by-blow account of the whole event like it was written. The two KEY components of our BLP rules is Neutrality and Verifiability with absolutely no original research. Conservatively written with strong emphasis on the privacy of the subject. Be sure to follow WP:BLP to the letter and use inline cites. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Your using too much Wiki-slang for me to understand. Can you give it to me in a bit of layman's terms. 24.214.53.191 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Read all the linked pages I referred you too... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Lord_Kitchener

Try that. I made a new version per your concerns. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Umayyad Mosquee panoramic

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:Umayyad_Mosquee_panoramic.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Crossroads#Wilson_cloud

HowardMorland (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I have answered all the items raised in the peer review. Would you like to nominate the article for Featured status? HowardMorland (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be glad too. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In response to your question on my talk page, I would like to co-nominate it and follow the process. I will need some advice on this, as I have never done it before. What do I do next? Thanks. HowardMorland (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Never nominated one myself, but from reading it you follow it, they review, make suggestions, if those are fixed and everyone agrees it gets nominated. Sorta like another peer review, except alot more people and the expectation it will be fixed asap. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like SandyGeorgia signed me up. HowardMorland (talk) 05:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cookie

Apologies for not seeing your reply sooner. Durova³³³ 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Category Invite

Please add the category [[Category:Wikipedia Featured Picture contributors]] to your userpage. The category is for ease of access to a list of serial FP contributors, and will not be used for spam. Thanks,   Nezzadar ☎   17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

		Voices Needed at Featured Pictures
		Hey there, this is just to let you know that there are some images that need additional input at the older than seven days section, and/or the older nominations requiring additional input section, and/or at that pesky box up top that says "FPCs needing feedback." Either way, it's time to rouse the troops, so if you haven't been around and have the time, come on by. Thanks.

 Nezzadar [SPEAK]  19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)